So here we are, rapidly approaching the business end of this year's Australian Open - Kerber and Federer on paper the favourites to win but this has been a tournament of surprises and maybe there's a couple of twists to come:

Women's semi-finals:

Halep v KerberMertens v Wozniacki

Mens' semi-finals:

Cilic v EdmundFederer v Chung

Mens' doubles semi-finals:

Mclachlan/Struff v Marach/PavicCabal/Farah v Bryan/Bryan

In the women's semis I'm expecting a tight 3 setter between Halep and Kerber - both have been playing some great stuff and whilst I'm rooting for the Romanian to finally win a slam I think Kerber when on form on this surface is just too strong. For the Mertens v Wozniacki match I'm going for Mertens to win. Despite her good run this tournament I'm not convinced with Wozniacki, whilst the young Belgian has been in irresistible form.

I didn't think Edmund would beat Dimitrov but he was most impressive in the quarter-finals and is clearly playing with a lot of confidence. Nadal's injury meanwhile overshadowed Cilic's performance in the quarter-finals and the Croat has played some tricky opponents earlier on. The way both Cilic and Edmund are serving I'm expecting a couple of tie-breaks in this one. I'm going for Cilic in 4 tough sets - I just think whilst he's had a fantastic tournament and improved considerably over last year, Edmund's never played in such an important match and I think Cilic's experience will take him through - happy to be proven wrong though!

Federer looked so clinical in 2nd and 3rd sets against Berdych and like a well oiled machine everything seems to be running smoothly and clicking into place for Fed at the moment. Chung's game could prove problematic for Federer, but I'm expecting Chung's level to dip slightly as the match goes on, and I'm going for Federer in 4 sets after an early scare.

Well done Cilic. There was a possibility of a one sided match after the first 3 or 4 games - the crowd sensed it. Cilic played very poorly to start with, nerves perhaps, or just slow to get into the match.

Cilic has lost to Federer a lot in recent years, but the matches have mostly been hard fought.

No name Bertie wrote:I would have thought Federer would prefer the roof to be open?

As Federer gets older five sets should favour Cilic more than Federer.

Not sure he cares too much one way or the other about the roof. I think his indoor record is the best of all active players (or maybe marginally behind Djokovic .....?). But he has also won 19 Slams, with the vast majority played in the open.

On the age factor .... yes, you would think a younger guy should definitely have the advantage ; especially when your opponent is into his late thirties.

As an aside - I am all for banter, but don't let this ongoing match be about "us", that is to say about "CC proving CC is right" or about "proving CC is wrong", let's while the match is in play, leave that aside. Personally my heart is with Federer (thinking that Cilic will get many more opportunities) - but am happy under any eventuality - let the best man win, and let's hope injury doesn't play an important factor.

Last edited by No name Bertie on Sun 28 Jan 2018, 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total

Roof close does seem like a strange decision. The key question - does it benefit Federer?

Obviously he prefers indoors, but might the same apply to another aggressive player like Cilic?

However Cilic has never got out of the group stages at the world tour finals, he has one win there only in three attempts. His record at Paris is slightly better than at other Masters, but only very very slightly. It's the only masters where he got to the QF 3 times, as well as one semi. However Paris can be easier for the mid ranked players like Cilic as the really top ones ease off ahead of WTF. And he won Cincinatti, not Paris.

I guess the reason it would benefit Federer is that he takes the ball slightly earlier. Therefore, he benefits more from a truer, indoors, windless bounce.Whereas Cilic waits for the ball to bounce up a little bit more, giving him more time to adjust. Does that sound right? Watching them play today I've been looking for this, and I think the difference is slight.

Experience indoors also benefits Federer. Just the number of matches he's played. However, I would have thought adjusting to indoors might be fairly easy since it's more of an absence of disrupting conditions rather than a presence of something new. Apart from the fact that you have to adjust to the ball moving through the air at a bit faster speed.

I guess overall it does benefit Federer.

If we add this to the controversy of Federer-Struff being chosen as the night match rather than Djokovic-Monfils, is there some favouritism going on?

Federer has demonstrated physical fitness that he shouldn't really have beyond his years. We're talking 2 aggressive players, a first set that has already been a short one. It can't be that long a match. I don't think Federer's fitness is in that much question if Cilic can take this to five.

By the way, tremendous footwork from Federer in one point there where he hit a cross court, looked to have exposed himself by leaving the court open and looked like the point would be lost, but turned back in the opposite direction very quickly and hit the ball immediately after the bounce and won the point.

Federer's physical prowess and footwork seemed to decline through about 2013/2014, when he looked like he might be on the way out and most people thought no more slams or maybe one more. Since then, nothing seems to have declined.

My basic point is that Roger is seen by many as the greatest player of all-time. He has an 8-1 head-to-head against Cilic who always seems to come up short against the very best. Marin Cilic is in the top ten players in the world at present but that cuts no ice when matched against the greatest of all-time. It isn't really rocket science.

And cheers lags72 all we are doing here is expressing opinions.

Last edited by CaledonianCraig on Sun 28 Jan 2018, 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total

I don't think either one of them is proved right or wrong by the outcome of one match. I remember on a football forum once saying a particular player was useless and just then they scored and everyone was like "aha, that proves you wrong" when my argument had involved the number of goals they had scored in the last 6 years....

Let's exclude the Wimbledon match on the basis of injury. In which case this is now the 3rd consecutive match between them to go to a deciding set, and 4 out of the last 5, all of which Roger won. Cilic only won one in straight sets.